It's important to remember that many religious Christians and Jews SUPPORT
gay marriage. "Pro-civil rights" does NOT mean
"anti-religion".Here's a partial list of denominations
that support gay marriage, or allow each diocese to decide independently. Not a
complete list, but it'll give you an idea of the widespread support for
equal rights amongst the religious:Anglican Church of CanadaLutheran and Reformed Churches--Church of Sweden--Church of
Denmark--Church of Iceland--Danish Church of Argentina--Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada--United Church of Canada--Protestant Church of Germany--Protestant Church of the Netherlands--Church of Norway--Evangelical Lutheran Church of AmericaPresbyterian--Presbyterian Church USA (blesses same-sex unions, but does
not perform marriages)Congregational polities--Quakers -- in
several countries--United Church of Christ--Canadian Unitarian
Council--Unitarian Universalist Association--Metropolitan Community
Church--Mennonite Church of the Netherlands--Affirming Pentecostal
Church InternationalMixed-polity and other polities--Swedenborgian Church of North America--Uniting Church of Australia--United Church of Canada (individual ministers)--New Apostolic
ChurchAn LDS offshoot -- Community of ChristAnd in
Judaism:--Reform Judaism--Reconstructionist Judaism (individual
rabbis)--Conservative Judaism (USA)
How quickly things change. I remember one presidential debate in 2000 when Gore
and Bush were in chummy agreement in their opposition to same-sex marriage.
After last week's SCOTUS ruling, same-sex marriage will spread to all 50
states pretty fast, and the whole thing disappears as an issue for the 2016
election... when the GOP candidate, I predict, will finally support same-sex
marriage. But from what my gay and lesbian friends tell me, the GOP has lost
the GLBT vote for the next century.
I left these out of my previous list -- they bless same-sex unions, and in some
areas perform weddings:Episcopalian polities--Anglican Church
of Canada--Episcopal Church of US--Old Catholic, Reformed Catholic,
and Liberal Catholic Churches
Does anyone know how to find online the statement read from LDS pulpits a few
weeks ago concerning the LDS church planning to continue working with the boy
scouts? Your help would be greatly appreciated.
"Religious leaders wonder what's next after gay marriage court
rulings".If you are not LGBT the answer would be, Nothing
really! Your life will continue being the same as now.If you are
LGBT then you have an opportunity to start enjoying a bigger degree of freedom
and feel more recognized as a member of the American society. However, we know,
that the road toward equality is long and we need to do more.Hopefully, religious leaders will choose to follow the higher spirit of their
laws. In a country that some claim to be a Christian copuntry. Perhaps, more
churches will realize the mistake of their ways and will become more inclusive
and accepting of nature, God and all his children.
Scott1: No letter was read in my ward
These rulings are about CIVIL marriage. They provide equal treatment under
civil law for same sex citizens, something guaranteed by the Constitution. They
do NOT affect church marriages in any way, nor will they, as the constitutional
doctrine of separation of church and state is actually strengthened by these
decisions. How? As Contrarius points out, many faiths DO support
same sex marriage; to deny them the right to perform them not only violates same
sex individual's guarantee of equal treatment under civil law, it imposes
religious beliefs of the anti gay marriage churches' upon those who believe
differently.Freedom of (and from) religion was a founding principle
of our country. All churches and people of faith should well remember this
principle as it protects their religious liberty as well. No one will be forced
to have or perform a gay marriage. Until they can prove otherwise in THIS
country, they should realize that as times change, if it weren't for our
secular government, they could see their religion denied it's beliefs by a
popular vote or legislative action. In the meantime, everyone is free to live
by their god's law as THEY believe it to be.
This isn't the loss for traditional marriage that some suppose it is. The
Sun will continue to rise in the east and set in the west and traditional
marriage is what continue to go on as it always has.It's good
that gays have come out of the closet. No longer because of societal pressure
will they be marrying unsuspecting heterosexuals this in itself is good for
many traditional marriages.For fairness sake it wasn't
necessary that gays be given the ability to marry, civil unions would have been
enough but what has happened does not mean the sky is going to fall. this
won't hurt my traditional marriage and it won't hurt yours either.
Religious leaders should fully understand what comes next.The
radical left activists will begin to disrupt religious activities, picket, file
frivolous lawsuits, write nasty letters to the editor, and otherwise harass and
intimidate any denomination that does not cave into their politically correct
notions, and abandon the traditional family as the very foundation of western
civilization.Any resistance will be fought with attacks on tax
exemptions for churches, the deductibility of contributions to churches, etc.
(Except those "approved" religions which preach the liberal party
dogma.)Their ultimate goal is that which the left has been pursuing
for a long time, "Freedom FROM religion" not "freedom OF
religion."In our brave new Orwellian world, bad has become good,
and neither black nor with is good, only rainbows. Equality will truly mean
that "some or more equal than others."
There is no 'next'. There has only been the now. "You will never
be satisfied with what you don't need because what you don't need will
never satisfy you." It is a momentary 'victory' for the Gay
rights crowd, because they have to wake up again, to find out that political
victory didn't do anything but make them more frustrated. The truth is
'hard' for those who refuse to accept it. No amount of reasoning can
enlighten anyone that is 'hardened' against it. Would you have it any
other way? There is only one form of marriage and you are either for it or
against it. It is awesome!
The elites of our country will be for polygamy once it passes the 50 percent
approval mark; just do what is popular, that is how Messrs. Obama, Clinton,
Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Dick Cheney and Rob Portman lead. Do anything to
@dn sub"Orwellian?" .
Many comments here remind me of the early days of the Civil Rights movement.
Remember when some religious leaders said the Civil Rights movement was part of
a vast left wing conspiracy of Godless Communists? Then, as now,
people said that racially mixed marriages offended the 'natural
order'In rendering his decision that was overturned by the
Supreme Court, Judge Leon Bazile said: "Almighty God created the races
white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents.
And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for
such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not
intend for the races to mix."Spencer W. Kimball wrote: "When
one considers marriage, it should be an unselfish thing, but there is not much
selflessness when two people of different races plan marriage. They must be
thinking selfishly of themselves. They certainly are not considering the
problems that will beset each other and that will beset their children."So you can't fight prejudice because of prejudice?Then,
as now, some people said that their own definition of traditional marriage was
predicated on denying the rights of others to marry.
Me dear DN Subscriber 2;I would admire your ability to predict the
future. Unfortunately, your predictions have a logic flaw and border on (or is)
paranoia.The question has been asked a million times and remains
unanswered. In what way same sex marriage affects "your" heterosexual
marriage?In twenty, forty or a hundred years from now heterosexual
marriage still will be the majority or marriages. Same sex marriage still will
be a minority. This follows the historical percentage of homosexual population
in any society.We may see that less heterosexual marriages go into
divorce. See, less homosexuals will enter into heterosexual marriages just to
fulfill somebody else's expectations.More children will live in
two parents families. More children will be adopted and live in families who
really wants them. As somebody remarked in this paper, children of LGBT are not
caused by accidents. They are wanted and loved. Your religion
beliefs will be protected and respected as long as you don't attempt to
create a tiranny of any particular religion, as many have tried.
Well now that gay people can marry each other I don't see the point of
myself getting married anymore. -no straight person ever
DN Subscriber 2Just a bit confused? Orwellian? George Orwell
abhorred orthodoxy and tyranny -- whether big government, big business, or big
religion. Orwell would have welcomed marriage equality.
While I generally support the legalization of gay marriage as a civil rights
issue, it should not be perceived as an unmitigated blessing. Divorce has
produced more messed up kids that ever before in history. Gay marriages are
even more fragile that heterosexual ones. This means even more divorce. So
there is clearly going to be some collateral damage among children. This is
something to think about.
@marxist --"Gay marriages are even more fragile that
heterosexual ones. "Legal gay partnerships actually appear to
break up at roughly HALF the rate of straight partnerships, from the data we
have so far. "In the states with available data, dissolution
rates for same-sex couples ...ranges from 0% to 1.8% annually, or ***1.1% on
average***, whereas 2% of married different-sex couples divorce annually."
-- from "Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in
the United States", published in 2011 by the Williams Institute at UCLA
School of Law.If you oppose promiscuity, then you should SUPPORT gay
marriage. Marriage ENCOURAGES monogamous, stable relationships.If
you oppose divorce, then you should SUPPORT gay marriage.--1. Legal gay
partnerships appear to break up at roughly 1/2 the rate of straight
marriages.--2. In 2011, 4 out of the 10 states with the **lowest** divorce
rates allowed gay marriage. --3. NY, CT, IA, VT, NH, and MA all have
**lower** divorce rates after legalizing gay marriage than just before.Gay marriage is GOOD for "traditional" marriage. It enables people who
want to HONOR the tradition of stable monogamous relationships to do so.
Whats next is full acceptance in all 50 states. And the LDS church is
there..whether they know it or not. Their statement on all boys should be in the
boy scouts put them down the correct path.
One post suggests that *Hopefully, religious leaders will choose to follow the
higher spirit of their laws. In a country that some claim to be a Christian
country. Perhaps, more churches will realize the mistake of their ways and will
become more inclusive and accepting of nature, God and all his children."
To the contrary, the spirit AND letter of the law of chastity always
has been, and will remain, abstinence outside of heterosexual marriage. The
Lord puts particular emphasis on this in all His scripture, teaching that
breaking this law is one of the most serious of all transgressions and will lead
to unhappiness. It isn't my law nor is it yours. It is His.
We can't wish or legislate it away. We need more churches who will hold
the line on this important doctrine.
DNSubscriber2: Your post about "radical left activists" is
nothing more than chicken-little fear mongering and wild speculation. Although
I do expect as time goes by, more denominations will join the already long list
of those which support gay marriage, largely because more people will come to
understand how irrational and wrong the stereotypes and fears about gay people
are. Since no one has been able to show how gay marriage can cause one shred of
harm to heterosexual marriage - and the best lawyers and experts the opposition
could muster tried their darndest and failed abysmally (read the transcripts)- I
can only conclude this will be a good thing.As far as Freedom of and
from Religion, any logical person should be able to understand that you cannot
have the former without the latter. We are a country which was established in
large part to escape the tyranny of what was felt to be the "right"
religion.Freedom of and from religion allows everyone to practice
their OWN religion-or none at all- and observe THEIR god's laws without
interference from sanctimonious holier-than-thou's who want to impose their
beliefs upon everyone else.
Marxist,Please explain how same se x marriage is more fragile than
hetero marriage? I really am curious how you came to this conclusion.
Contrarius...First, to use the word "Catholic" and the
phrase "Same-Sex-Marriage" in the same sentence is simply wrong. True
Catholics (those not swayed by popular opinion or press and dedicated to their
Faith) will NEVER vote for Lesbian or Gay "marriage". This would be akin
to abandoning our Faith altogether... Please do not confuse TRUE Catholics with
would-be pretenders or "Cafeteria Catholics" (who choose what they want
to believe from TRUE Catholic teachings).I personally cannot condone
same sex marriage because it precludes the possibility of naturally born
offspring; which is by the way, necessary to continue our fragile Human Race! I
am to assume that you are also for Abortion, Euthanasia, Forced (State
controlled and enforced) Birth Control, etc? Given your comments, I have to
wonder what you would draw the line at? If the Government decided to start (as
China has for years...) to limit the number of children a family can have, would
you also get behind it? Just wondering?A very, VERY Concerned
Catholic and VOTER!
"Legal gay partnerships actually appear to break up at roughly HALF the rate
of straight partnerships, from the data we have so far. " This is
interesting and something I am going to look into. So should the rest of us.
This could be important analysis.
@steph1968 --"to use the word "Catholic" and the phrase
"Same-Sex-Marriage" in the same sentence is simply wrong."Sorry, Steph, but you don't get to dictate what those churches call
themselves. The "Old Catholic" and "Reformed
Catholic" churches broke away from the Catholic church back in the 1800s,
and the "LIberal Catholic" church was founded by Anglicans and Catholics
in about 1904. None of them are "johnnie-come-lately", and they are all
in full communion with the Anglicans."it precludes the
possibility of naturally born offspring"Gay couples can have
children in exactly the same ways that any other infertile couples do. Unless
you are willing to ban all infertile marriages, this argument holds no water at
all.@very concerned --" the spirit AND letter of the
law of chastity always has been, and will remain, abstinence outside of
heterosexual marriage."Oddly enough, there is no commandment
that says "thou shalt not be homosexual". In fact, adultery
and divorce are mentioned in the Bible a lot more than homosexuality is.How many divorced people do YOU know? Are you ready to go stone them?
People who divorce and remarry are adulterers -- and adulterers deserve
Giving a certain group of people the same rights that the majority share is
nothing but a great thing.
Steph1968,I have good Catholic friends and good Catholic family ---
I am not a Catholic myself, but I believe I find your representation of
Catholics inappropriate. I don't consider any one Catholic "truer"
than another, or "true" and "not true." If
anything, through the years, I have come to realize that Catholics, like most
other members of other religions, have opinions/beliefs/faith that somewhat
differ from orthodoxy. In fact, even clergy sometimes disagree and I would not
call anyone Catholic priest not a true Catholic by any means. It's human
nature to have an opinion.
Marxist,You wrote, ""Legal gay partnerships actually appear
to break up at roughly HALF the rate of straight partnerships, from the data we
have so far."Someone corrected you on your claim and you cannot
come up with substantial studies --- in fact, because there are none. Your
claims are ridiculous.MSN Living publishes that among heterosexual
couples, "Seventy-three percent of couples said a lack of commitment was the
main reason their marriage didn’t work" in their article "The 8
most common reasons for divorce."According to another source in
The Huffington Post, among other reasons: selfishness, forgetting to love, lack
of commitment, being incompatible, not growing together, etc."Among them, I do not see the gay factor you speak of...
I don't know what religious leader will choose to do, but I do know a
couple of relevant facts:1) If no one over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8
would never have passed in CA in the first place. The controlling factor was not
race but age, in the end.2) Around the nation as a whole, gay marriage is
"overwhelmingly" approved by people under 30.So, long term as has
already happened in the once-segregated South, an older bigoted generation will
die off; and a new, more open generation will emerge and find its own religious
voice and leaders.As Sondheim wrote so memorably in Cabaret, "Tomorrow
belongs, tomorrow belongs, tomorrow belongs to me!"
Instead of "wondering", religious leaders should be asking themselves,
"have I been treating my neighbor as myself?" "Have I been treating
others how I would want to be treated?" "Have I been un-Christlike in
the manner I have treated others, and if so, should I not expect to be treated
that same way by those I have abused?" Oh it is interesting to see the
bewilderment of the persecutors when the tables turn.
Its rather simple.The public has civil-marriage, and the church has
religious-marriage.If the church is so aching to have the word
marriage to its self, then would its members be happy to convert their
'marriage license' to a 'civil union license' that all can
"This gives Christian churches the opportunity to do what Jesus called us to
do with our marriages in the first place: to serve as a light in a dark
place," Moore wrote. "Permanent, stable marriages with families with
both a mother and a father..." Hello? Hello? Pastor? I always thought that
WAS the goal. That's what you should be concentrating on but haven't
been. Divorce and broken homes is almost the rule and not the exception. Where
have you been? Did it really take expanding marriage to same sex couples for
that light bulb to go off in your head? And guess what, those of us who are gay
and want to marry our same sex partners hope to achieve the same thing. My same
sex partner and I have been together for twenty-one years; we're
monogamous, as well. That's never been an issue for us. We just did it
because we're committed to each other. Just as you should have been in your
own marriages. Did it really take gay marriage to show you the way?
The lord never has or ever will approve of a same gender marriage situation are
you smarter than an all powerful and knowing God who only wants the best for his
children? What right does a judge have to overturn the will of a majority of
people. Same gender things called marriages will always be wrong and people
that use there legal authority to try to authorize them will one day have to
answer to a higher power.
I don't care that two homosexual marry. What bothers me is that so many
Americans celebrating the supreme court decision seem to have casually brushed
aside God's laws.They are celebrating in the streets and on the
web. Well, the people who lived at the time of Noah were probably living happy
lives not knowing that they had offended God. The people living in Soddom and
Gommorah were probably happy and feeling just fine even though they did not
realize that they had offended God.Ignorance is bliss until the
judgements of God come calling on nations that intentionally ignore moral laws.
@aislander"Freedom of and from religion allows everyone to
practice their OWN religion-or none at all-"Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereofWhere is the freedom from religion part?"We
are a country which was established in large part to escape the tyranny of what
was felt to be the "right" religion."When did congress
pass a law supporting the right religion?
@Alfred Stansbury"As Sondheim wrote so memorably in Cabaret,
"Tomorrow belongs, tomorrow belongs, tomorrow belongs to me!" For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking,
marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away(Matt
Very concerned,Two things: 1) We do not live in a
theocracy.2) Who appointed you to be God's spokesperson?
I am bothered by some of the feelings out there.I am straight and married
but I do not feel threatened by gay marriage.Saying that divorce is always
an attack on traditional marriage isn't necessarily correct.Some
divorces are frivolous and do have a negative effect, but others are necessary
if a spouse has become abusive.Whether it be physically abusive or
psychologically abusive. Neither environment is a good one for kids. Sometimes
the mother/father move on to healthier marriages which become better examples
for the kids.And there are plenty of married couples out there who
don't have children together. Whether because they married as older adults
or due to infertility. To look down on them because they don't procreate is
callous in my opinion.
You who believe that same-sex marriage is inevitable in Utah, don't
understand the influence of LDS members, here, who vote for those who would make
that decision. You're naive if you believe that legislators, the majority
of whom are conservative and many of whom are LDS, would "buckle" simply
because liberal states have gone down a different path. And, if you believe that
the LDS Church is influenced in the slightest by the stance of other religions,
you might want to re-read "The Family: A Proclamation To The World,"
especially the last three paragraphs. Does the Proclamation sound like a
"suggestion" to you? To me, it is clearly a mandate and a warning.
I am baffled still by the anguish that many profess at the progress that the
LGBT movement has made especially in terms of same sex marriage. I am also
inclined to think that if those who support "traditional" marriage had
set the standard they seemingly claim to have instead of dishonoring marriage by
divorce infidelity etc., we might be looking at a different scenario today. You
can't claim to be the defenders of an institution when those (the LGBT
community) whom you would attempt to deny access to the institution of marriage
are doing a better job in defending it in the short time they have been able to
marry than the "traditionalists" have in the millennia they have had to
set the example they should have, but did not.
It is not up to us mortals to decide if same sex marriage is the right thing to
do. Those of us who believe that we have a creator that gave us direction in how
to live a life that is acceptable. Marriage with a person of the same sex
is not accepted in his plan. We of course now have the legal right, due to 5
people who think it is. Personally I believe differently. I will live my life as
I believe we should. I have pity for those who choose otherwise. We will face
our creator at some point with how we lived our lives. I will be glad that I
didn't choose that path.
I think what will come next is affection in public. Holding hands kisses will be
We never discuss the fact that there are babies born out of wedlock. We never
discuss the fact that fully half of all traditional marriages end in divorce.
Even if traditional marriage was the greatest example of civil relationships,
that is not going to end gay relationships. Those relationships have stood 40
and 50 years without being married. The religious groups would be
better off hating the sin, but loving the sinner. I believe that is what Christ
taught us. We have made a judgement about these relationships and it is not our
job to judge; "Let he who is without sin, throw the first stone". We
need to only worry about living our lives as sinless as possible. Each person
is going to have to come before God, he will judge each of us.
What should come next? Application of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the
US Constitution to same-sex marriaes in all states. If a person is legally
married in one state, that person should be considered legally married in ALL
states regardless whether the marriage could legally be entered into a given
state (example -- first cousin marriages are recognized and accepted in all
states, even if they couldn't be contracted in a given state). The Full
Faith and Credit clause in the US Constituion should apply to same-sex marriage,
just as it applies to "traditional" marriage.First cousins
who are legally married in one state (like Utah) are still married if thy move
to a state that does not allow first cousin marriages. It should be the same
for same-sex couples. Once they are legally married in one state, they should
be able to have their marriages considered legal in ALL states, and have all the
benefits and responsibilities of marriage in whatever state to which they may
move. Once married, always married, unless that marriage is dissolved by an
order of the court in an action they bring to terminate their marriage.
‘Religious leaders wonder what's next after gay marriage court
rulings’Join the 21rst century and do what thay are supposed
to do ie provide comfort and service to all peaple?
One thing I think is really interesting:I hear every day how nowhere
in the Constitution does it say the words, "Separation of Church and
State," so it is my pleasure to remind some people on this forum that
nowhere in the Constitution does it state, "Freedom of Religion." Oh, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" but
what these people need to understand is one of the inherent logic structures
within the Constitution is reciprocity. This means no laws can go against
religion or religious beliefs but also that no laws can be in favor of religion
or religious beliefs. It sounds obvious, but you might be surprised at how many
people get irate when they are confronted with the Constitution protecting the
people from religion just as it protects us from the non-religious.Gay marriage does not in any way lessen the sacred bonds of religious
For most I think it will be business as usual. For a few, those that feel
entitled to push themselves onto a society that they refuse to believe is right
to ignore them entirely, they will be ever angry and disappointed, and left
Religious conservatives use of the term "family values" is both limited
to their own terms and insulting. I know two lesbian couples, both of which
have children, and they're family is no worse than those who arrogantly
claim they and others like them are living "family values." Their
children are psychologically healthy and well adjusted. Religious
dogma is the wrong way to approach this issue.
I just find it interesting that we think we can legislate morality. We make a
law and then think that all is ok. Does that mean that if we pass a law that
says murder or stealing is ok then is it? There are moral absolutes. Some are
just not willing to accept that.
"Pro-civil rights" also does NOT mean "pro-gay marriage".
Without exception, all pro-same-sex people that I see expressing their views,
try to equate same-sex marriage with "Civil Rights" to make it sound
inevitable, saying that anyone who is against same-sex-marriage is a
"homophobic bigot". Given this, and the vindictive and mean spirit that
goes along with it, make it impossible for the people who are pushing for
same-sex marriage to simply ignore those who don't believe as they do. Oh
yes, it certainly will affect everyone, as they will try to force everyone to
wholeheartedly accept same sex marriage by bringing all sorts of frivolous
lawsuits against any person or organization who shows any semblance of not
accepting same-sex marriage as equivalent to traditional marriage. It is
happening now, and how could anyone think that it won't increase in
frequency and intensity in the future? And what is to stop some judge somewhere
from saying that it violates someone's civil rights to not allow 2 men to
marry 1 woman, or 3 men to marry, or whatever combination whatsoever. Anyone who
doesn't see all of this coming is in major denial.
Out of wedlock births are a major cause of poverty and the political leaders are
not trying to strengthen traditional marriage which is society's way of
promoting that men should be responsible for their reproductive actions.Somewhere along the line I used to talk with socialists and I did buy
into their vision of a society with no rich or poor, but I don't think that
the government is able or even willing to do this. (Refer to Pelosi's
comment about having to pass the Obamacare bill se we can know what is in it
with people getting their hours cut below 30 hours a week).The idea
of society with no poor is good. But the government is not the solution.
We'll have to do it without them. I just hope that they don't
interfere too much. (I wonder what will happen with society's respect for
human rights like freedom of conscience?)Who here has ever
participated in inner city tutoring programs? Gone to Decker Lake youth
detention center to tutor or tell stories? The new liberals in our society are
those who strengthen traditioanl marriage rather than redefining it.
What a mess:)
As a devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, here is
my view. In the Book of Genesis God commanded our first parents Adam and Eve to
multiply and replenish the earth. Churches who support gay marriage are saying
they don't support this law of God. Because of my belief in God I support
this commandment and believe that marriage can only be between a man and a women
because our first parents were Adam and Eve.
I seriously question any reported statistics which speak to the success rate of
gay marriages and children in those situations. There aren't enough
samples to draw a legitimate conclusion nor enough time to base it on. Once gay
marriage has been around for thousands of years, then we can start to tout the
benefits of it when compared with heterosexual marriages.Its a nice
rosy outlook to think of this 'movement' as a benign one in which only
peace and tranquility and equality for all is the objective. Already wars on
religious organizations which oppose same sex marriage in their doctrines have
been waged; even when such religious groups have offered no violence or
retaliation against the opposition.The LDS church supports
traditional marriage but does not preach hatred or violence from their pulpits
against those who support a different view point. Stating their policy and
living their doctrine is not hate speech.
Abinadis friend:You wrote;"Personally I believe
differently. I will live my life as I believe we should. I have pity for those
who choose otherwise. We will face our creator at some point with how we lived
our lives. I will be glad that I didn't choose that path."That is your right to do. You can count on me an thousands of other LGBT who
would defend your right to do so.You will live your life as you
think you should, we just expect to have the same right.
The LDS Church bases its doctrines on direct revelation from God, which cannot
be altered or intellectually interpreted by man, and on decisions made by Church
officers with authority from God to act in His name. Other
church's doctrines are based on the ideas and opinions of men/women, who
create those doctrines by logic and interpreting scripture intellectually. They
deny modern revelation exists, so it is OK for them to define and change
doctrine by logic and reasoning; I’m sure they are prayerful when doing
so.LDS doctrine comes directly from God. It can be obeyed or
rejected, but it cannot be changed. LDS members cannot debate whether or not
SameSexMarriage (SSM) is God's will, because God has told them it is not,
period. Condemning LDS members for not accepting SSM is pointless,
because LDS doctrine, which every member sustains as part of being LDS, is that
God has defined “marriage” already, by revelation, to the Church.
The Church conveys what God has revealed to His prophets in these times.The only way an LDS member can change that is to debate God about it.
Good luck with that!
It appears to me that some people who defend LGBT lifestyles and relationships
are making a "guilt by association" error when they defend their
ideas.LGBTs certainly have the right to complain that they have not
been treated well and fairly by many who oppose LGBT lifestyles. Truth is, they
have not. That is one issue which has been around for a long time. I lived and
worked in California with LGBTs daily, but I am pleased to say I didn't
give much thought to it and did not treat them badly.Now, LGBTs are
defending the rulings about SameSexMarriage, which they are pleased and proud to
have won. In doing so, the mistake is being made when LGBTs assume that heteros
who oppose SSM are also condemning them as has been done for many years, just
for being LGBT. While they are sometimes right, they are often wrong; I, and
others I know who aren't in favor of SSM, are not condemning LGBTs at the
same time.LGBTs should not assume that heteros who oppose SSM
necessarily hate LGBTs, i.e., "guilt by association". They are separate
issues. There is plenty to work out without doing this!
@dtlenox --""Pro-civil rights" also does NOT mean
"pro-gay marriage"."I was wondering when someone would
remark on my choice of words there. ;-)"Pro-gay marriage"
does NOT mean "anti-traditional family" -- yet the anti-gay folks keep
trying to frame the argument that way.Equal rights for gays IS about
civil rights -- and that means civil rights for ALL."what is to
stop some judge somewhere from saying that it violates someone's civil
rights to not allow 2 men to marry 1 woman, or 3 men to marry, or whatever
combination whatsoever. "We've covered this bit of hysteria
many, many times already.Gay marriage is already legal in 13
countries around the world, and will soon become legal in several more.Polygamy is not legal in ANY of those countries.Of special
interest is Canada, which has had gay marriage for years now. In 2011 the
Supreme Court of British Columbia easily REAFFIRMED the constitutionality of
their polygamy ban, based on public safety (risk of harm) arguments. I've
quoted parts of Judge Bauman's decision in many other threads, so I
won't repeat them here.Polygamy is NOT bound up together with
Hopefully more ministers will realize this doesn't have to be a
"win/lose" situation. Religion is always more powerful when people
follow it willingly, rather than because the State Legislature says you have to.
@morganh;The "Book of Genesis" in the bible is fiction,
start to finish.@dtlenox;Do unto others as you would
have them do unto you. You don't believe in Jesus? That's what he
told you to do.
My problem with a lot of Christians is that won’t be happy until they
force everyone to believe what they believe and be controlled to behave as they
behave. That isn’t what the Constitution of United States of America is
all about. They will have to come to understand that other people can choose to
believe what makes sense to them and do what they think is right for their
lives. Not everyone in this country is Christian. In fact I would
challenge that they are even the majority. I don’t want to change
Christians and I implore them not to try and change me.Abortion and
gay marriage: no one is forcing them to do either thing. They must understand
that they do not have any right at all to deny other people of the opportunity.
The scripture teach us that there are "save two churches only, the church of
the Lamb of God and the church of the Devil." (1 Nephi 14)In my
opinion, any church that supports Same Sex marriages, is not part of the Church
of the Lamb of God.
"It is not up to us mortals to decide if same sex marriage is the right
thing to do. Those of us who believe that we have a creator that gave us
direction in how to live a life that is acceptable."Nice way to
stereotype anyone who views this issue differently as being non-believers who
lack faith!"Marriage with a person of the same sex is not
accepted in his plan. We of course now have the legal right, due to 5 people who
think it is. Personally I believe differently. I will live my life as I believe
we should. I have pity for those who choose otherwise. We will face our creator
at some point with how we lived our lives. I will be glad that I didn't
choose that path."Perhaps those who believe differently will
have lived a kinder, nobler life that you. What if they spent more time serving
others and doing the best to bettering the lives of others? Will the God you
believe in really condemn them to an eternity without Him? I guess we won't
really know until judgment day, but I will let HIM be the judge.
Finally, to anyone who claims to know and love "gays" or
"LGBT's" but don't think they deserve marriage rights, I would
ask you to do something the next time you post or read a comment on here to
replace that vague, generic reference with their actual names. Instead of
saying, for example, that "the gays are just trying to advance their own
selfish agenda for their own pleasure," say "Gary and Paul are just
trying to advance... Do you really think that about your friends and neighbors?
If so, I would ask you to do some soul searching and pray to be more empathetic
to their stations in life.
What's next is, open season will be declared on religious people, whether
it be in the work force, military, college campuses or public schools.Gays know full well they can not legally force their way into churches, so
they'll do the next best thing which is intimidation.On Bill
Moyer's PBS show, Tim DeChristopher recently stated that one should follow
their conscience, even if it means disobeying the law. This will become the new
credo for the LGBT community. After all, do you really think the
ACLU, HRC or Equality Utah will care if LDS, Catholic or Baptist people are
harassed or mocked or intimidated?
MugabeI couldn't disagree more.It is the Church of
Jesus Christ, not the Church of Prop 8 - so take the politics out of it and
start living the gospel of love.
It is high time that all of you just learn to accept us gays.
What's next? That's a no brainer. The Dear Leader will attempt to
force religions who stand against immorality by "recommending" they
perform homosexual marriages. When they refuse, the IRS will pull their tax
exempt status since this would be violating the civil rights of the homosexual
The great Creator of the universe and Father of mankind has been removed from
American schools, rejected in the courts and now excluded from marriage. How
long can our nation thrive after abandoning the source of our strength and
inspiration? After all He has done for us? It breaks my heart and I am
experiencing separation anxiety. It will be more imperative now to keep Him
close to our hearts and love Him with fierce loyalty.
@fredsgirl1You said, "My problem with a lot of Christians is
that won’t be happy until they force everyone to believe what they believe
and be controlled to behave as they behave. That isn’t what the
Constitution of United States of America is all about."The same
argument can be made regarding the LGBT community. You said,
"They will have to come to understand that other people can choose to
believe what makes sense to them and do what they think is right for their
lives."Fine, you leave us alone and we'll leave you alone.
But we both know the LGBT community is just getting started. You
said, "I don’t want to change Christians and I implore them not to try
and change me."That may be true with you, but you're in the
minority.You said, "They must understand that they do not have
any right at all to deny other people of the opportunity."And
yet, the LGBT has every right to butt their lifestyle into all facets of our
Father and Mother will no longer be used...it will now be Other. "Go talk
to your other", or "Other, where did I come from?" How about
"Your other, and I and some unknown donor love you and want you to know you
are wanted and loved.". Future children will hear, "Someday you can
grow up to be an other too" Next we will need "Others day"
celebrations with "Other cards" "Other bouquets" and "Other
day dinners".Why we can get rid of Husband and wife too. "I
love my other so much." or "There has never been an other as sweet,
thoughtful or caring as you..my dearest other!"We can be politically
correct and get rid of son and daughter too. "That's a fine set
of others you got there."How about Grandothers and Grandothers.Why religion could adopt "Other in Heaven". You could go to the
church and say, "Other, I have a sin to confess"Electricians could
get confused. "NO, give me the other end."Post office would have
"Other Others".Pretty soon we can throw all the dictionaries away
because none of the words will have relavence to reality anymore.
Keep your religion to yourselves. Live it as you were told to do so by your big
J. Do that, and we'll get along just fine; it's when you try to force
others to live by your religious tenets that we have a problem.
ClarkHippo says:"@fredsgirl1You said, "My
problem with a lot of Christians is that won’t be happy until they force
everyone to believe what they believe and be controlled to behave as they
behave. That isn’t what the Constitution of United States of America is
all about."The same argument can be made regarding the LGBT
community. "---Clark, guess what, nobody is going to
make you "believe" anything; you're welcome to your beliefs.
You're also welcome to understand that not everybody believes as you do and
YOU should allow THEM to live their lives as THEY see fit. You should also
understand, that just because someone does something you don't like, it
won't kill you to accept that they do it. Time to grow up and smell the
@RanchYou said - "You're also welcome to understand that
not everybody believes as you do and YOU should allow THEM to live their lives
as THEY see fit."And yet, it's the LGBT community that
continues to push their agenda on everyone. The Supreme Court hands you what you
want on a silver platter and it still isn't enough. Everyone knows the
intimidation and fear-mongering from your side has only just started. You say, "...smell the equality," But how can you say that? Equal
rights mean equal responsibility. It means, equal punishment, equal taking of
responsibility, equal respect. And LGBT's want none of that.
It's sad. So many people showing how small they are--how terrified of The
Big Bad Gays. Why one would believe these paranoid misconceptions did baffle
me. The dire "predictions" are truly laughable were it not a serious
issue. They obviously must not actually KNOW any gays well; therefore they
believe anything. Unfortunately, previously most gay folks had to
stay hidden because of fear of losing jobs, homes, families; that allowed
people to have ridiculous misconceptions about gays. Many think we should
still stay hidden to continue the status quo. Thankfully those days are almost
over. That's why our poll numbers are rising dramatically. As
has been discussed, many faiths and denominations support gay marriage. Why do
some think THEIR particular religious beliefs should dictate how civil law
treats us...someone please answer that! Contrary to what many think,
we seek not your approval; you can hate us (and frankly I have more respect for
those who admit it) all you want, but as tax-paying law-abiding United States
citizens, we do demand your tolerance and equal treatment under the civil laws
of our great free country.Get to know us! You'll be surprised!
Hey, drinking and smoking are legal but that doesn't mean the Mormon church
can be forced to open a bar or allow smoking in their chapels.The court may say
that gay marriage is legal, but can they force a church to perform gay
marriages? Probably not. That would violate separation of church and state. Even
if all states are forced to allow gay marriages, that doesn't mean that any
minister can be forced to perform a ceremony against their own beliefs. If gays
want to get married, they should have to go have it done by a church that
supports gay marriage.Nobody is forced to belong to a certain church and no
church can be forced to change their beliefs to suit the government. There has
to be freedom both directions.
Religions should stay out of politics.They do not need to perform such
marriages. Does religious freedom mean religions should control everyone not in
DN Subscriber 2 is absolutely right when he/she says:Their ultimate
goal is that which the left has been pursuing for a long time, "Freedom FROM
religion" not "freedom OF religion."And if you want to
know why the left wants to do away with religion in America, compare 'party
votes by state' map to a 'church attendance by state' map. Highest church attending states vote almost exclusively Republican, and
lowest church attending states vote almost exclusively democrat. States in the
middle on church attendance split votes between the parties.All the
voter rights, marriage rights, abortion rights, spying rights, etc, are really
about suppressing the religious vote and voice in America. Read the threads.
Hate of religious people is everywhere. So there is a war on
religion, being waged by primarily by the DNC, to get control of the votes in
more states. They have a lot of anti-religion bigoted red-necks on board too.
This is pretty simple really. Evil is never good regardless of how anyone
wants/tries to spin it but it is a necessary component of the plan.Evil is real and it is expanding to surround us despite those who tell you the
opposite of what your conscious tells you. Then again, those familiar with
scripture are aware of this and the difficulties ahead.In the end
all of this will be settled so just make sure you are standing in the RIGHT
place when the time comes.Don't be distracted by the strategic
incessant attempts at confusing what righteous behavior is.
Look at Canada to see what will happen next. Anyone caught reading or teaching
the Biblical teachings on homosexuality will be arrested. When Rome is burning,
someone has to be blamed.
I try to love all. It’s hard though when militant activists are pushing
their agenda so strongly. But, if I am one who tries to follow Jesus Christ, I
am obligated to love them in a brotherly way. I do believe there are sincere,
dedicated people within the GLBT community. I am sure there are many fine
people who work hard, and are loyal and honest. We just disagree on some
things. But, I am convinced that the Church got it right though,
when it said, in the Family Proclamation of 1995, that, *WE WARN that
individuals who violate covenants of chastity, . . . . will one day stand
accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family
will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by
ancient and modern prophets.WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and
officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain
and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.*But, might I
wish for a more civil dialogue. I see The Church and the Deseret News asking
all of us for more civil dialogue. The Churches’ voice is one of warning
and even invitation.
What's next for religious leaders? They go about their business like they
@ClarkHippo --"After all, do you really think the ACLU, HRC or
Equality Utah will care if LDS, Catholic or Baptist people are harassed or
mocked or intimidated?"I was living in Knoxville a few years
ago, when a man stormed into a Unitarian church gathering there and SHOT NINE
PEOPLE just because he hated "liberals, Democrats, blacks, and gays".
Gay people in the US are still **EIGHT TIMES** more likely to be the
victims of violent crimes than straight people.Another gay man was
shot and killed in NYC just this past week -- WITH the shooter shouting gay
slurs at him -- in yet another obvious hate crime.We see continuing
violence against gays all over the world -- like those mobs in the country of
Georgia that have been LED BY PRIESTS.In some countries,
homosexuality is still PUNISHABLE BY DEATH.Civil rights for
homosexuals is **literally** a matter of life or death. But you're upset
because you're afraid that a few gay activists may be RUDE?? Get real.EVERY time you disparage or criticize gays or make them
seem less than you, you are ENCOURAGING that ongoing hatred and violence. Those
attacks -- those deaths -- are on YOUR heads.
@ ContrariuserSo by your reasoning, are all Muslims, or the country
of Israel, responsible for Muslim terrorists acts?I think those who
pull the trigger are responsible for the actions. Not everyone of their race, or
gender, or orientation, or religion, the one who pulls the trigger only. To blame everyone of a certain classification is exactly the unfair
practice this article is talking about. Thanks for proving the
"But from what my gay and lesbian friends tell me, the GOP has lost the GLBT
vote for the next century."This may be true for the Lesbians
but, they're less than 2% of the U.S. population. This number pales in
comparison to the courting the right needs to do with minority voters. Gay men however, are pleasant and gay because they want to be.
They're definitely more forgiving.
@Badgerbadger --"So by your reasoning, are all Muslims, or the
country of Israel, responsible for Muslim terrorists acts?"Most
Muslims don't advocate that Jews are evil. Any who do so are contributory
to the extent of their advocacy.There's a reason why hate
speech is often punishable by law -- and in many countries around the world, not
just our own."The International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) states that 'any advocacy of national, racial or religious
hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence
shall be prohibited by law'."In the US, SCOTUS Justice
Frank Murphy in 1942 summarized the case law: "There are certain
well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of
which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include
the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or
'fighting' words - those which by their very utterances inflict injury
or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."We **know**
what the consequences of homophobia are. Every time we hear of another
gay-bashing or gay murder, we see those consequences with our own eyes.
@ Contrariuser"... and the insulting or 'fighting'
words - those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an
immediate breach of the peace."We **know** what the consequences
of homophobia are."FYI 'Homophobic' (any form of the
word) is one of those 'fighting' words. Just pointing out
the double standard. You want civility for one group while you insult another.
Civility is a two way street. Your own words convict you, and you only, as a
hater. I believe there is a compromise that could be made that fully respects
those on both sides of this issue **IF** insults and hate could be set aside.
But, lumping those opposed to SSM as being homophobes, haters, bigots, halts the
I am just guessing here but if you peer 20 years down stream I could easily see
one of two things...1. Marriage in America disolved2. The LDS
church forced to perform gay marriage in their temples. Either 1 or
2 spells further decline of our society which by the way is following ..not too
far behind that of Godless and moral-less Europe.
@Badgerbadger --"Just pointing out the double standard."It isn't really a double standard. "Homophobic" is a term
with a specific definition -- "irrational fear of, aversion to, or
discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" -- and we can see from
the repeated failure of anti-gay-marriage people to come up with reason-based
arguments that it does indeed apply in the majority of cases.But --
BIG but here -- **even if I were applying a double standard**, as you claim --
even if I were 100% guilty -- the consequences of my supposed "hate
speech" are MUCH MUCH less significant than the consequences of yours (I
mean the general "you" here -- the folks who are against gay
marriage).Nobody is being killed or beaten just because they oppose
gay marriage.But people ARE being killed AND beaten just because
they are gay.With greater consequences come greater
responsibilities. The speech that does the most harm is the speech that should
be the most restricted. First we need to work on cutting out the
speech that actually leads to people getting KILLED. THEN we can worry about the
speech that merely ruffles a few feathers.
What should come next is opening our arms to everyone. We should follow
Jesus' command to love our neighbors as ourselves, while continuing to
preach faith, repentance and baptism. The Holy Spirit will be more powerful
changing those within the Church, and those who do not believe the way we do,
than any law suit, or hate filled sermon.
Marriage needs to be defined as a man/woman institution to preserve its proper
form as an institution dedicated to the raising of children by their biological
"Homophobic" is a fluid term used to attack the statements, beliefs or
otherwise of those who feel that God ordained sex only between a man and a woman
lawfully married, and that all other forms of sexual action are wrong.It is used to malign people who feel a vested interest in preserving marriage
as the institution it is and thus preserving the definition it has.
I'm curious about a statement by Russel Moore. He said: we believe
marriage is as resilient as Jesus says it is (Mark 10: 6-9). Doesn't that mean that "biblical" marriage will survive
regardless of any change in civil laws? Doesn't that imply that this whole
fight should be done without appeals to Biblical values, as the Bible seems to
tell us that marriage will survive regardless, and that churches have no proper
role in opposing the expansion of equality?
I think what's next is legalizing polygamy.
@Sophie 62 --"I think what's next is legalizing
polygamy."That is very unlikely to happen.Here's a few reasons why:1. Roughly 15 other countries
already have gay marriage -- and NONE of them have legalized polygamy.2. Canada recently reaffirmed their polygamy ban in court -- even though
they've had gay marriage for 10 years.3. Multiple court
decisions in the US have reaffirmed the distinction between gay rights and both
polygamy and incest.Here's a couple of excerpts from US court
decisions. In these quotes, "Lawrence" refers to the SCOTUS ruling
overturning sodomy laws ---- Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health,
(Mass. 2003): "...the constitutional right to marry properly must be
interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but this) DOES NOT MEAN
that this constitutional right...extend(s) to POLYGAMOUS OR INCESTUOUS
relationships....the state CONTINUES TO HAVE A STRONG AND ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION
for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous
relationships..."-- Utah v. Holm (10th Cir. 2006), reaffirming
polygamy bans: "the holding in Lawrence is actually quite narrow.....In
fact, the Court went out of its way to EXCLUDE FROM PROTECTION conduct that
causes 'injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law